When great players are omitted from the HOF, does that hurt the player or the HOF?

[BiZmaRK]

When great players such as Jim Kaat, Dale Murphy and Pete Rose aren't in the Hall of Fame, we usually hear how the player is the one hurt by the omission. However, the way I see it, the HOF - not the great players who are omitted - is the one which is hurt when such great players are left out of the Hall of Fame.

I'd like to get the thoughts of others on this.

[GiambiJuice]

If it's a borderline case, it's the player who's hurt much more than the HOF is. It doesn't damage the museum at all to not have a plaque for the Jim Kaats and Dale Murphys of the world. Pete Rose is a whole different story, and he brought that upon himself. He's one of the all-time greats and obviously would have been a first-ballot inductee if he had not broken the rules and bet on Major League Baseball games.

[milladrive]

I tend to think both have damaging consequences, to varying degrees. The player goes on a short list of those who are barred from the Hall, thus tainting their names. The Hall, on the other hand, is, imho, hurt more by their poor (and extremely selective) decisions to omit players who put up legitimate numbers.

Pete Rose, for instance, was banned from baseball for life due to gambling. But did he ever cheat in order to put up some of the best numbers in baseball history? No. Meanwhile, Cooperstown is now ready to begin considering players who bettered their numbers by using PEDs. Extremely incongruous, and one of the reasons I've come to think of the Baseball Hall of Fame to be somewhat of an inconsistent joke.

[BiZmaRK]

If it's a borderline case, it's the player who's hurt much more than the HOF is. It doesn't damage the museum at all to not have a plaque for the Jim Kaats and Dale Murphys of the world. Pete Rose is a whole different story, and he brought that upon himself. He's one of the all-time greats and obviously would have been a first-ballot inductee if he had not broken the rules and bet on Major League Baseball games.

Let's say you take your kid to the Hall of Fame. He asks, "Daddy, who has the most hits of all-time", and you answer "Pete Rose". He then asks either you or a HOF employee, "can we see Pete Rose's plaque?", upon which he is disappointed to learn that there is no Pete Rose plaque there. The kid is then going to think, "What kind of Hall of Fame is this if the all-time hits leader doesn't have a plaque here".

[PVNICK]

I think the hall is strengthened by the quality of players that are kept out even if some that got in are maybe of lesser caliber.

[Nerdlinger]

I'd say both, although I wouldn't consider Kaat or Murphy Hall-worthy.

[GiambiJuice]

Let's say you take your kid to the Hall of Fame. He asks, "Daddy, who has the most hits of all-time", and you answer "Pete Rose". He then asks either you or a HOF employee, "can we see Pete Rose's plaque?", upon which he is disappointed to learn that there is no Pete Rose plaque there. The kid is then going to think, "What kind of Hall of Fame is this if the all-time hits leader doesn't have a plaque here".

I doubt this hypothetical situation will ever happen to me, but if it does I'll just explain to my son that Pete Rose broke MLB's cardinal rule and received a lifetime ban so he doesn't deserve to be honored in the Hall Of Fame. It doesn't take anything away from his accomplishments it's just that bad decisions have bad consequences. He was aware of the risks and decided to bet on baseball anyway. Not only did he bet on baseball games, but he bet on his own team as a manager, which is much worse than betting on some random game between two other teams or betting as a player only and not as a manager.

[filihok]

I'd say both, although I wouldn't consider Kaat or Murphy Hall-worthy.

This.

Rose was certainly great.

Kaat and Murphy...meh...thousands of people aren't heading to the HoF to see Jim Kaat's bust

[jalbright]

The Hall has little to lose for borderline cases, or banned players. The exclusion of banned players is for easily explained and understandable reasons, so while the exclusion may disappoint some, others would be disappointed if they were included. I see it as a wash for those guys. If a guy's so far in the past nobody alive (or virtually so), the Hall doesn't lose much even if there's a strong case for the guy--and since the player is dead, it certainly doesn't matter to him. It may have meaning to the family, but that's about it. See the case of Bill Dahlen for what I'm talking about with guys in that group. A small delay for a guy still on the BBWAA ballot doesn't mean much to the Hall--there's still time, after all, but it may well annoy the player. Now if a Greg Maddux was left hanging for 10 years or more, it wouldn't be good for the Hall, but really, how likely is that? That gets us to two groups--the guys who there's solid evidence of juicing, and the guys who are being kept out on nothing more than "suspicion"/skepticism. I think the latter group would damage the Hall if it goes on for very long. It's an emotional issue, and the patent unfairness of excluding guys on that basis reflects poorly on the Hall. That group is a time bomb for the Hall, IMHO. The guys we have serious evidence of juicing on is a mess that won't look good to anybody, but it's a mess those guys helped bring on themselves. We have to see how that one plays out over time.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Let's say you take your kid to the Hall of Fame. He asks, "Daddy, who has the most hits of all-time", and you answer "Pete Rose". He then asks either you or a HOF employee, "can we see Pete Rose's plaque?", upon which he is disappointed to learn that there is no Pete Rose plaque there. The kid is then going to think, "What kind of Hall of Fame is this if the all-time hits leader doesn't have a plaque here".

He more than likely will ask "Why?". Then he probably won't be so disappointed.

[dgarza]

If it's a borderline case, it's the player who's hurt much more than the HOF is.

I agree mostly.

Although, there are players I would like to see in the HOF who I still wouldn't call "great". So for the purpose of this thread, my vote does not concern borderline players. My response is geared towards the Johnny Mizes of the game who get left out for some time.

[SamtheBravesFan]

He more than likely will ask "Why?". Then he probably won't be so disappointed.

Exactly. Any inquistive kid wanting answers is going to ask why Pete Rose's plaque is not there. As GiambiJuice points out, it'd be a great example of showing how actions have consequences: "Pete Rose was a great player, but he broke the rules about gambling, so he doesn't get a plaque." That would be enough to satisfy most kids.

[Roundin' third]

I said neither. I don't see people not visiting the Hall of Fame since a player isn't in it. Most people probably wouldn't even know who is and who isn't in the Hall of Fame. A player maybe hurt in the short in term but as time goes by memories will fade and and a new generation will have come along. Hence even if a player was inducted they maybe considered among the lesser players and forgotten about as well.
All that said I can't see a truly great player not being inducted unless they brought it upon themselves by breaking the overriding rule of the game such as Pete Rose and "Shoeless" Joe Jackson. So to me this discussion really centers around border-line players, which maybe seen as great in the eyes of some and not so great in the eyes of others.

[Ben Grimm]

We could see this season, if nobody gets in of course, Cooperstown taking a major financial hit as the induction weekend is surely a huge money-maker for that town.

I've said for years, and still believe, that Pete Rose gains more attention by not being in than he will when/if he finally gets inducted. Two times a year - election time and induction time - his name is mentioned hundreds of times in the media and on forums like this one. He actually remains relevant by not being in.

[jalbright]

I agree mostly.

Although, there are players I would like to see in the HOF who I still wouldn't call "great". So for the purpose of this thread, my vote does not concern borderline players. My response is geared towards the Johnny Mizes of the game who get left out for some time.

I think leaving out someone who is clearly qualified and without serious baggage is bad for the Hall. Santo and Mize are two good examples of this.